The Court of Appeal has partially approved the appeal of the defense of the accused Živojin Nešić as well-founded, reducing his sentence from 15 to 13 years in prison for sexual rape during the war in Kosovo.
The Basic Court in Pristina had found Nesiq guilty and sentenced him to 15 years in prison, reports “Oath for Justice”.
“The appeal of the defense counsel of the accused Živojin Nešić is partially APPROVED as well-founded and the judgment of the Basic Court in Pristina – Special Department, PS.nr.71/2024 of 17.06.2025, regarding the decision on the sentence, is AMENDED, so that the Court of Appeals sentences the accused Živojin Nešić to 13 (thirteen) years of imprisonment for the criminal offense for which he was found guilty,” states the Appeals decision drafted on March 17, 2026.
The appeal has rejected as inadmissible the appeal of the representative of the injured party, lawyer Makifete Saliuka, filed against the verdict of the Basic Court. Likewise, the rest of the appeal of the defense counsel of the accused Nešić, lawyer Miloš Delević, was rejected as unfounded, while the rest of the verdict remains unchanged.
The defense attorney of the accused Nešić, lawyer Miloš Delević, filed an appeal against the verdict of the Basic Court for essential violations of the provisions of criminal procedure, incorrect and incomplete determination of the factual situation and violation of the Criminal Law. He proposed that the Appeal Court acquit the accused due to lack of evidence or return the case for retrial.
The representative of the injured party, lawyer Makifete Saliuka, has filed an appeal due to the incorrect application of the Criminal Law regarding the criminal sanction, proposing to change the verdict of the Basic Court in the part related to the imposition of the sentence and to sentence Nesic to 20 years in prison.
The Appeals Prosecution, through a submission, has proposed that the appeal of attorney Delević be rejected as unfounded, while the appeal of attorney Saliuka be approved and the accused be sentenced to 20 years in prison.
According to the appellate claims of lawyer Delević, the first instance court did not properly assess all the decisive facts of this case. According to the defense, the Basic Court accepted the later version of the victim’s statement, changing the legal qualification of the criminal offense from attempted to completed criminal offense, without medical evidence or other objective evidence.
The defense also claimed that the first instance court violated the Criminal Law, since there is no individualization of the defendant’s actions nor evidence proving his intent, and that his mere presence in uniform and the general circumstances of the conflict are not sufficient.
The defense’s appeal also highlighted allegations of essential procedural violations, in the absence of clear and complete reasons on the decisive facts, identifications carried out without the presence of the defense, contradictions in witness statements and the lack of objective evidence to incriminate the defendant, proposing that the first-instance verdict be annulled and the case be retried.
In her appeal, lawyer Makifete Saliuka considered that the sentence was too lenient and did not correspond to the gravity of the criminal offense, the consequences and the damage caused.
What are the findings of the Appeal?
According to the judgment issued by the Court of Appeal, the claims of attorney Delević that the enacting clause of the indictment and judgment is unclear, contradicts the reasoning, lacks reasons on the decisive facts, and that the reasons are contradictory or incorrectly assessed, especially in relation to procedural violations, are unfounded.
The Panel of this Court has assessed that the enacting clause contains a sufficient description of the factual and legal elements of the criminal offense “War crimes against the civilian population”, and that the conclusion of the first instance court is based on evidence and testimony that incriminate the actions of the accused.
Furthermore, the defense’s claims that the witness statements and the identification procedure were carried out without the presence of the defense attorney were deemed unfounded by the Appeals Court.
The defense in the appeal claims against the Basic Court’s judgment has alleged that the victim’s statements in different time periods contain essential contradictions. However, the Appellate Panel has assessed that the testimony of the witness – injured party D1., is characterized by clarity, as the facts and circumstances are shown in accordance with the chronology of development and the vital logic of the event. Therefore, these claims do not stand.
The Appeals Chamber also found the defense’s claims that the identification of the accused by the victim and witnesses was uncertain and not supported by sufficient evidence to be unfounded.
“From the chronological analysis of the evidence administered in this case, it results that the identity of the defendant has been mentioned and confirmed consistently throughout all stages of the procedure,” the Appeals Court decision states.
Likewise, the claim of contradiction in the victim’s statements regarding the attempted or completed rape, the Appeals Panel has assessed as unfounded. As for the lack of medical evidence, the Appeals Panel has assessed that it is not a circumstance that excludes the confirmation of the criminal offense.